My problem with Nintendo and the 'If it ain't broke' theory.

[TilMorrow]

what is this nintendo you speak of? I vaugley remember playing with a charcol colured box that had N64 on it..back in '99.....but nothing else

Odd, I don't seem to recall anything past that time either....how very strange.

I don't remember that... I remember the Super Nintendo, then I thought they focused on handhelds, like the best handheld console of all time, the DS?

Oh you guys. The humour is prevalent in these ones.

I can't really say about the stories for Metroid and LoZ being repetitive but I can say that Mario's definitely is with it sometimes being set in a different setting though. Although I could also point out that LoZ, Metroid and Mario still all use the same formula for their game design. Though thats because people enjoy it mostly [sub]and probably to make it easier for Nintendo to make those games.[/sub]

Captcha: watch C-beams glitter what the hell are C-beams?

 

[Asita]

As to your point before that, I've not played Skyward Sword because from all the reviews I read it wasn't going to be anything I hadn't seen before: dungeon crawler to gather the same basic items with one new gimmick (sail a boat; turn into a wolf; play obscure instrument of the week.)

You can dress it up with all the bells and whistles you want but at the end of the day you're playing the same elf gathering the boomarang and the hookshot fighting practically the same enemies that were in the first game about thirty years ago.

Now that seems rather disingenuous, given that you differentitated God of War by saying:

God of War I? Mortal fights to unlock powers and murder the God of War. GoW II? One-time mortal is stripped of his powers by the king of the gods as punishment for his hubris; engages in a series of increasingly brutal and breathtaking fights to reclaim his powers and challenge said king. Gow III?

Spoiler

One-time mortal now full-time badass systematically wipes out every god on Olympus, destroying the world in the process, blinded by the desire for revenge against his father, motherfucking Zeus.

I could do this all night.

Really, the least you could do is use consistent standards and comparisons, and with that as a defense of God of War, then the following works as a defense of the Zelda Franchise:

Ocarina of Time: Describes one of the earliest incarnations of Link and Zelda, and provides the origin story for Ganon. Focuses on Ganon's attempt to acquire the triforce, and the aftermath of that attempt on Hyrule and the Sacred Realm (The latter of which was corrupted into the dark realm).

Majora's Mask: Link goes down the rabbit hole into a dying world, arguably the most character driven of any Zelda title due to the characters' constant awareness of their imminent doom and their need to find their own closure before the three days are up (which provides the bulk of the gameplay).

Oracle of the Seasons/Ages: Link is forced to deal with tyrants who have altered the nature of the world itself by imprisoning one of two oracles. Each is a complete game on its own, but linking the two games reveals that two witch followers of Ganon are manipulating events to orchestrate ganon's revival.

Twilight Princess: Link's attempt to save a childhood friend leads him to discover the encroaching darkness and its corrupting influence on those around him. Late in the game, Ganon is revealed as having driven the plot in an attempt to escape from the Twilight Realm into Hyrule.


To borrow your phrasing: I could go on. To be less condescending though: If you're going to mince details about one series to insist on its internal differentiation, you could at least afford the series you're comparing to it the same courtesy.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

I think what the OP is getting at is that the games Nintendo makes all seem to fill the same kind of niche and as a company they seem happy to be there, except for venturing out and appealing to more casual gamers and making things like motion controls and 3D handhelds, which are seen as little more than gimmicks. Yes they do some interesting things, but notice almost all of those games that are cited as being different are side games, mostly for handhelds. And while other companies do some of the same things for awhile, they don't even approach the 30+ years that nintendo has been doing it, except maybe blizzard because they only release a new installment every 10 years or so.

I personally don't really enjoy this because I'm never surprised by anything once I start playing a Nintendo game. It might be well made, but they're never really ground-breaking. Their games will just never be as good as their earlier games for me, because they're not new anymore. There will never be a Mario that really matches up with my first time playing Super Mario World, or a Zelda that matches up with my first time going through Windwaker, or a Metroid that matches up to my first time with Metroid Prime, because they were all new experiences for me. I know this is a totally subjective view, but why would I be spending my time and moeny failing to recreate those times of novelty when I can buy games from other companies that actually ARE new and different experiences?

 

[Zeh Don]

Nintendo are the most innovative and imaginative games developer in the world. And I don't even play their fucking games.

The innovations introduced in the Mario series along belittle everything that has been introduced in every title in the last console generation combined.

If you don't like it, don't play it. But seriously, this is just sad.

 

[Zelcor]

Mario, Zelda, Star Fox, Kirby, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, Donkey Kong Country, WarioWare, F-Zero, Pikmin, Punch Out, Kid Icarus, Custom Robo, Pokemon and Smash Brothers.

Mario = Every year has seen a new mario across 2 systems
Zelda = Has seen a new release each year BUT different stories, different worlds are present, and alternates between the handheld and consles
Star Fox = Last release was actually a pretty fun DS game released six years ago
Kirby = releases every year or two but it has been hit or miss
Metroid = Last Metroid game was Other M which a lot of people didn't appreciate since Prime was doing such a damn good job. Mind you Other M came out 2 years ago and it was 3 years before Prime 3 came out.
Fire Emblem = Last FE release was Shadow Dragon which was a DS remake released 3 years ago and Radiant Dawn both great games should've done better but alas didn't.
Advance Wars = LOLOL 2008
Donkey Kong Country = 2 years ago since DKCR and it was lackluster till then since The NINTENDO 64
WarioWare = Joke series don't even kid yourself
F-Zero, Pikmin, Punch Out, Kid Icarus, Custom Robo = All of these have been around for YEEARRS but haven't seen more than 2 releases in their respective series and it's been 9 years since we got a F-zero game
Pokemon = Great games but get the support they do because of their story elements and new pokes. pokemon games get a new release about every 2 years.
Smash Bros = At most this is system seller.

As good as all of these games are Nintendo gives them (with the exception of Mario and Zelda) ZERO support and only brings out the other games just to convince the gamers that Nintendo actually cares about them. A wii-only household is IMPOSSIBLE for "serious gamers" if you play with another console or PC that's fine but to honestly say that the Wii is some sort of hardcore heaven because of Zelda? That's bull****

 

[RafaelNegrus]

>Pokemon constantly trying risks in social networking, new tactics, story, and level design

Really? I think Pokemon is probably the MOST repetitive game on the face of the planet, (exception for sports sims of course)but it manages to get away with it because each game is essentially an expansion of the last one. The story is a thin veneer at best, and ALWAYS plays out the same way, but people keep buying it for basically a roster expansion. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but defending Pokemon as innovating from game to game is rather silly.

Btw, if you want Nintendo to innovate more with Zelda? Shut up about it. No really, think about it. It's the diverse franchise that feels like they know what's best that pulls it apart in two constantly conflicting directions. In short, Ocarina of Time was the worst thing to happen to Zelda.

I don't know what this means. Please elaborate?

 

[RafaelNegrus]

rs.
Smash Bros = At most this is system seller.

You forgot to mention it has seen only 3 releases, each one on a different console, each multiplying the content of the previous game and dramatically changing the mechanics.
While games like Street Fighter and King of Fighters have multiple same console releases. And let's not forget that it's so good Sony is copying it.

That's what he means by system seller, they put it on a new console to get people to buy that new console.

Worldwide play across a handheld console.
Trading your pokemon from PREVIOUS games
Innovation.

They had the trading from previous games thing since Gen 2, and we're on Gen 7 now, do you still want to trade on something that's a decade old?

And worldwide play is impressive in the age of wifi everywhere? Really? EVERY game with a multiplayer focus does that.

Yes, they keep up with current technology and keep allowing you to trade pokemon from previous games. That doesn't make Pokemon the same as Portal.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I think we can all agree that most games have the same character templates:

-Hero
-Damsel
-Villain

The problem with Zelda and Mario is that these templates are always stuck to the same characters: Link/Mario is the hero, Zelda/Peach is the damsel, and Ganon/Bowser is the villain. After a multitude of games with these characters filling the same role everytime, they just start to feel stale. And they lack any indication that they might act in a new and surprising manner.

This was one of the reasons why I liked Wind Waker, because atleast Zelda was a different character... untill she put on a dress and became the same old boring damsel again.

 

[Evilpigeon]

I agree with a lot of what the OP is saying but it's soemthing inherent in all long running series. Nintendo keeps their games nice, safe and familiar in the same niche that they have always occupied. You know exactly what you're gonna get from just about any one of their titles.

The difference is that they don't bother writing a plot that'll actually disguise the fact that the gameplay is so similar. It kinda defeats the point of a series as far as I'm concerned. Incremental gameplay changes aren't really enough to make me buy into a sequel. If it plays pretty much the same and there isn't a plot worth paying attention to then it isn't worth making as far as I'm concerned.

Yes this goes for everything before some idiot decides that my general opinion is referring only to Nintendo.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

Their fans ask for more of the same and they're happy to give them it. I don't see the problem, just stop buying Nintendo mascot titles and you're golden.

 

[Vivi22]

That`s why I specified no more than other games. These are samall changes yes, but normal compared with any given franchise. The only reason you want Mario or Zelda to change completely as opposed to, say - Gears of War or Mass Effect (random examples) is because you don`t like them.

Wrong. The reason people give Nintendo a hard time and not other series is because for the most part they've been making the same game over and over since the N64; so about 16 years. Not to mention that in that time the underlying mechanics not only haven't changed much, they usually haven't changed at all.

If you can't see how some iterative improvement across a 3 game series within the span of a few years is different than games which, even if they had the same level of iterative improvement, have been getting made for more than 3 times as long then you're just being willfully blind.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Mario games to me always seemed about the fun mechanics and level design rather than any over arcing plot. Or rather, the journey instead of the destination.

 

[Something Amyss]

what is this nintendo you speak of? I vaugley remember playing with a charcol colured box that had N64 on it..back in '99.....but nothing else

A cult. That box was their indoctrination device. "N64" is short for "Neural Indoctrination Unit 64" and is the 64th iteration of the device.

Obviously, you are strong-minded to have resisted the siren call.

 

[Vault101]

what is this nintendo you speak of? I vaugley remember playing with a charcol colured box that had N64 on it..back in '99.....but nothing else

A cult. That box was their indoctrination device. "N64" is short for "Neural Indoctrination Unit 64" and is the 64th iteration of the device.

Obviously, you are strong-minded to have resisted the siren call.

oh...my...GOD!

lies! it was all a lie! this prophet..this PLUMBER! he is the harbinger of our doom! wake up sheeple! the reckoning is upon us!

 

[lord.jeff]

Zelda isn't always strictly Link vs. Ganon. It's one of Nintendo's more varied series.

Most varied series is Mario the guy has been in almost every genre know to gaming.

What I am seeing in this thread is a difference between two philosophies:

1) Seeing a game as different as through the story or
2) Seeing a game as different as the way it is brought to the audience.

In Mario and Zelda, you are seeing the exact same story each time (minus 2 or 3 games) but each time the way it is told is different.

For fans of the series that may be enough. For people who may not be fans it may not.

In my opinion, a change in gameplay telling the same story may be enough, as long as the change is large enough to justify it being a full price purchase. I also like Dynasty Warriors, so take that as you will.

This right here, so many attack Zelda for always being the same game because your always saving the princess, never mentioning things like Twilight Princess and Skyword Sword each having there own unique combat system and then you have games like Wind Waker that probably wouldn't even be recognized as a Zelda game without the familiar names. And people like what they like and there is nothing wrong with wanting more of something you like.

 

[Kahunaburger]

OP, you need to learn the difference between a game that changes the window dressing and a game that changes the mechanics.

 

[Dandark]

The only Nintendo games I play are Zelda ones and they seem to have some decent variety. Twilight Princess was like an upgraded OoT while Wind Waker had some new things I really liked. I enjoyed exploring the world with the sailing and I enjoyed the graphics and combat, wind waker is one of my favorite Zelda games.
Then there is also Majoras Mask, I would hardly call that a clone, it had some really cool ideas that were a lot of fun.

They all follow the same formula usaully, you go crawl through multiple dungeons to get a bunch of stuff you need to fight the big bad. You get a new weapon or piece of equipment in each dungeon and must find keys for doors, there is a big boss key to get into the boss room where you fight a giant monster of some kind.
It's a fun formula hence why people play the Zelda games and yet at the same time it feels like they add some new things or change it up enough in each game to not be a complete clone like the yearly Cod releases.

I don't know about their other games but I wouldn't call Zelda completely lacking in innovation.
Damn now I want to go play some Zelda, want to play Majoras mask again but don't want to lose a month of my life to it. Also want to play Wind waker and Twilight princess but don't know which to do first! ARG!!!

 

[Necron_warrior]

I think its the fact that their IP's have lived far to long that's getting on peoples nerves.